The proposal to flood Skagit WMA represents a distressing conversation
dilemma: Given the choice between two disappearing habitats, which do you
choose? People love shoreline. Relatively undisturbed estuarine/salt marsh
habitat is becoming rare. Many birds rely on these habitats during
migration. Migrating birds need stopovers at reasonable intervals.

However, similar arguments can be made for shrubby/grassy/weedy (SGW)
habitat at low elevations near the shore. SGW habitat has certainly
increased in the mountains where logging occurs, but development and clean
farming are gobbling up those areas in the low-elevation Puget Trough, where
the weather is mildest year-round and warmest during the winter. Simple
geography says there is more land area available for creating SGW habitat
than there is for creating estuarine habitat, but nothing is that simple.
All land in the Puget Trough is expensive. The closer to the water, the
more expensive it gets. Land a "safe" distance from development, where the
ibirds are less exposed to traffic mortality, high levels of
human-associated predators (skunks, raccoons, rats, feral and domestic cats,
opossums, squirrels, crows, etc.), and high levels of competition from urban
birds (house finches, house sparrows, goldfinches, and other feeder birds)
is becoming extremely rare. The Montlake Fill is an example of one of those
rare SGW habitats, somewhat buffered from the surrounding habitats by the
playfields, but still with a large population of urban predators and
competitors.

I think I'd lean towards favoring the dike breaching, but I wouldn't
casually blow off the importance of SGW habitat in the Puget Trough. Many
species already hammered by development are going to suffer. Ideally,
"someone" (and who would that be?) would try to compensate by setting aside
Skagit Valley areas maintained in a SGW condition. Unfortunately, land is
something you can't make more of.

Kelly Cassidy